Blanqui - rescued from the enormous condescension of posterity

If you are of a certain age on the left your reaction
to the name Blanqui is probably ‘WRONG’ and that
is pretty much it. If you are younger the more
likely thought is ‘WHO?’ since the name of the
nineteenth century French revolutionary has
perhaps not featured a great deal in recent
discussions on the left.

Doug Enaa Greene and Haymarket Books have
therefore done a valuable service in rescuing
Blanqui from the enormous condescension of
posterity. Indeed Greene makes a good case for
why Blanqui deserves to be rescued.

He had a remarkably long life (1805-1881) given
various attempts at revolution, spells of
imprisonment often in poor conditions, and ill
health. He also had a magnificent beard.
Over such a long life there is inevitably a lot of
detail and for that a read of the book is required.
Here I will flag up a few points of perhaps key
interest.

Blanqui’s view was that revolution was needed,
always, but this would not come from the masses.
Rather it required a dedicated band of organised
revolutionaries, usually operating secretly and
conspiratorially to avoid interruption by the forces
of the existing order.

The conspiratorial model of revolution was the
dominant one where the question arose around
the world certainly up to 1848. It was used for
example by the Chartists in the summer of that
year with the usual unfortunate results. The
problem with conspiracy as a political method is
of course that it invites spies and Blanqui was
plagued by accusations that he knew of such
people or indeed was one.

That said, after the French Revolution on 25
February 1848, Blanqui did organise openly and
tried to push the revolution further, albeit
unsuccessfully.

Marx and Engels did not agree with Blanqui’s
politics and often said so. They were for an open
mass workers organisation. Where they did reach
general agreement with Blanqui was on the
principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Greene argues that Marx and Engels invariably
stood by Blanqui as a shining and obvious example
of someone who believed in revolutionary ends
even if they did not agree about the means.
Greene also notes that Blanqui was thought to be a
useful bulwark against Bakunin’s supporters on the
First International.

Blanqui supported the Paris Commune and his
supporters had a key role in it while not seeing it
as a prototype model for workers’ control as Marx
and Engels did. His influence continued to an
extent after his death.

Some of his supporters turned to interventions in
electoral politics supporting the campaign of
General Georges Boulanger hoping it would lead to
a coup against the Government.
It did not and Greene notes that in a subsequent
split the majority of Blanqui’s remaining followers
aligned themselves with a nationalistic and antiSemitic
political trend and disappeared into
obscurity.

Blanqui had always been against all religion but his
views to modern eyes would be seen as antiSemitic
according to Greene. A minority of his
followers did not follow that path and by 1905
found themselves part of the French Socialist
Party.

It had been quite a political journey.

Greene’s biography deserves to be read not just as
history, but also as an important exploration of
political paths and methods which are not in the
main taken by the modern left, but without
question still find attraction for some.